Solís v. Registrar
Solís v. Registrar
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
By a public instrument executed before NotaryAndrés Mena Latorre in the city of Caguas on July 17, 1913, the spouse’s José Luis Font y Costa and Dolores Puig y Constanti, as own
Upon the presentation of a copy of the said instrument for record in the Registry of Property of Caguas, the registrar entered the following decision thereon:
“The cancellation referred to in the foregoing instrument is entered as to property “a” on pages 203 and 116, over, of vol. 26 of this city and vol. 18 of San Lorenzo, properties 1321 and 836, duplicate, records 5 and 4 respectively; and, in regard to «property “b” it is entered by a marginal note on record 4 of property 582, triplicate, on page 115 of vol. 30 of this city; and in regard to the mortgage therein comprised, the said instrument is recorded as to property “a” on pages 203 and 117 of vol. 26 of this city and vol. 18 of San Lorenzo, properties 1321 and 836, duplicate, records 6 and 5 respectively, and as to property “b” oh page 117 of vol. 30 of this city, property No. 582, triplicate, record 6. The following curable defects are pointed out: Failure to describe in the instrument the part of property “a” which is situated in the ward of Tomás de Castro of this city and the part of the same property which is situated in the ward of Hato of San Lorenzo, and failure to distribute the amount secured by the whole property “a” under the mortgage between the two parts composing the said property. Caguas, August 5, 1913. Raul Benedicto, registrar.”
It appears from the decision quoted that property (a) is one single property, a part of which is situated in the ward' of Tomás de Castro of Caguas and another part in the ward' of Hato of San Lorenzo. Therefore as one single property is involved, the mortgage created thereon affects it as a whole- and.section 119 of the Mortgage Law to the effect that “"When several estates are mortgaged together to satisfy one debt only, the sum or portion of the encumbrance for which each estate is to be responsible shall be determined,” is not applicable to the present case. Nor is it necessary to describe separately in the instrument the part of the said property which is situated in the ward of Tomás de Castro of Caguas and the part situated in the ward of Hato of San Lorenzo. The said requisites would be necessary if the mortgage were created on two separate properties but not when it affects one-single property.which is situated in two different municipal districts.
In the first record made of the property containing 58 cuerdas in the separate registries of Caguas and San Lorenzo,, the parts of the said property lying in each of the said municipal districts must be described with the particulars required by the law. The description required by the registrar in the decision appealed from is not necessary and the interested party is not bound to apportion the amount secured by one single property between two parts thereof when it is his intention that the whole property shall answer for the total debt.
For the foregoing reasons that part of the registrar’s decision referring to the curable defects in the mortgage encum
Decision of the registrar reversed as regards curable defects.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.